Spiritual Meditations (21 Apr 2010 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Sultan Shahin: A Life Positive Magazine Profile: The Universe Is A Manifestation Of The One Universal Consciousness

Transformation

Sultan Shahin, a journalist, spoke to Praveen Chopra

Is this man for real, you wonder. He has the temerity to write that Muslims in India should have no qualms in claiming their Vedic heritage. Or that Muslims' prayers remain unheeded because they have forgotten how to pray effectively, to meditate that is. He calls the Babri mosque demolition an opportunity for Muslims to learn some lessons and to feel grateful to God for making it possible.

They can, for example, exert their right to forgive and thus set both parties to the dispute free of the karmic debt. This is provocative stuff. But Sultan Shahin, son of a maulvi (Muslim priest) and married to a Hindu, is an unusual man. His journey of transformation has been atypical too. He was attending a barbecue party in England about eight years ago where one face-reader told Sultan that his birthday must be on October 26. For Sultan, this was too close to reality (October 27) for comfort.

Starting with astrology, Sultan went on to delve into spirituality. One of the things he tried was the Hasidic Jewish prayer about forgiving all people who might have hurt one physically, psychologically or financially in the past. For him, this brought back memories: the experience of hurt and living through the accompanying pain again. It wasn't just a load off his shoulders metaphorically; the pain he used to suffer in his shoulders and back disappeared, too. This demonstrated for him the relationship between experience and the body, which is a store-house of experiences. Growing in knowledge, he becomes aware that all that is is energy. Sultan believes that the less conscious we are of the density of things, the freer we are of illusion.

In retrospect, Sultan says, he had faintly realised such truths even as a teenager. Born in a village in Bihar, he used to take the cattle out for grazing which gave him ample time to reflect. The thinker in him made him argue with his father: "Why do you want me to pray to a God I don't understand?" He stopped doing namaaz (prayers) but promised his father that he would study all religions, particularly Islam, and choose the one that most convinced him.

Meanwhile, his father died and being the eldest son, he had to shoulder the responsibility of supporting a large family. He learnt lessons from both hard work and adversity. He improvised in his own way—akin to creative visualization—which helped him to relax within seconds by imagining that he was flying on clouds. Adversity, Sultan believes, is a great boon. "Only when he is in a loving mood, God gives you a problem. The bigger the problem, the more confidence he has in you."

Sultan believes that there is a logical progression in the history of religion. He gives an example: "While Islam is absolutely monist, people wonder why the Quran rarely gives arguments in support of that standpoint. The reason is that God had already taught that through Vedanta and yoga. So, the Quran is specific that you cannot be a good Muslim unless you respect the earlier prophets of whom there were 1,24,000." Sultan extends the argument to assert that the New Age has synthesized the knowledge from various spiritual traditions as well as science. The bottom-line: there is only universal consciousness, the universe is a manifestation of that: and we are all spirit beings.

Honestly speaking, I am mentally
exhausted. I will write a personal note to Sultan Shahin Saheb and post it within
a couple of days. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to insult any
religion.

Naseer Ahmed Saheb should steer far
away. I am glad that Muhammad Yunus Saheb is busy with his scholarly work. There
is after all a limit to all such insanity.

Name and town, if you wish to opine
should be the rule of the forum. If Sultan Saheb does not screen any commentator’s
identity, then more such “Enemies Of Islam” will come on board and
disrupt the debates.

Aren't all Aurangzebs crazy bigots with an obsessive compulsion to convince themselves that they have won every argument?

Secular Logic asks “What was the reason to make the comment to rational that I have copy pasted below? What was the ocassion, the thread, the provocation? None”.

My response: Rational not only said that the debate is not over but also mentioned what he would prove. My response was simply that what he can prove is what is already admitted. What was already admitted was detailed so that Rational would not go about trying to prove what was admitted. Now he has done exactly that!

There was a part that was admitted, and there was a part that was hotly debated, and left unconcluded. That part was your claim that Jizya was a benevolent tax that non Muslims loved to pay. Rational said he would disprove that, and left it at that. You were the one who declared the debate was over and there was nothing left to prove.

SL says: I have seen what rational said. He merely mentioned that the Jizya debate was not over yet. He did not restart the debate.

My response: Yes it is you SL who tried to restart the debate which you admit as quoted below:

SL says: I am not taking up cudgels on anybody's behalf. I am presenting my own viewpoint.

I can present my viewpoint any time I like. Before the debate, during the debate, or after Aurangzeb has declared the debate closed and announced his conclusions. Since his conclusions are open to question, presenting my viewpoint at a time contiguous to when he is presenting his erroneous conclusion is consistent with a desire to not restart the debate, but to set right the record on the unconcluded issues.

Secular Logic contradicts himself: “Rest assured, I have no wish to debate with you.

SL once again contradicts himself: “You declare the debate is over. I dont think so”.

I dont think the debate is over. It is not over because you have only bulldozed the opposition, not convinced it. At the same time, I have no wish to debate with a pigeon like you. Mr Lodhia has helpfully pointed out the futility of such an exercise. Both are consistent statements.

SL says: “You declared that it was over, you had won it, and made the astonishing claim that Jizya was a benevolent levy on non-muslims”.

My response: The claim that Jiziya protected the minorities and their faith was made in the debate and defended through an exchange of more than 100 posts. What was SL doing then? Is he not trying to restart a debate that has ended?

1. The debate has not ended. It has been adjourned. 2. If the claim is made again, it is consistent to challenge the claim again.

SL says: “I would have taken you up on it even if you were talking to the air”.

My response: He didn’t take it up when I was debating with three other people. Nothing new has now been said that wasn’t said earlier.

That is no reason why I can't speak of it now. You were telling lies about Jizya, and I challenged your lies about Jizya. I will do so when you say Jizya was benevolent and protective of non-muslims. Though I may not do so every time, especially if other partiee are already engaging with you on the subject. I reserve that freedom. My non participation earlier does not preclude me from airing my views when you present your weird conclusions subsequent to the adjournment of the debate.

The original statement said "you and your minion" were calling me Sanghi... etc etc. I should have de-hyphenated the two name calling entities. By grouping your names on one side and grouping the names you called us on the other side, I made the same error that you and your aides make when you lump all four active critics of islam together. So let me split that sentence for you. You called us "islamaphobes" as a group ( besides assigning other special adjectives to us individually) ; GM, your minion, called us Sanghi. The result of this splitting is still that you and your minion took the lead in calling people names, and by your own argument, those who call people names are losers of an argument. Anything else?

By secularlogic - 2/19/2014 1:11:40 AM

Muslims in this forum should not waste their time responding to hatemongers like Rational, Hats Off, Suhail and Secular Logic who want to engage us in antiquated subjects that should not interest us. We need to discuss issues that the articles in New Age Islam, so wisely chosen every day by Sultan Shahin sb. and his staff, focus on.

It is sad to see the Comments section taken over by the enemies of Islam. Debates with them are useless. By debating with them we become complicit with them in their nefarious plot to frustrate the purpose of this site.

By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/19/2014 1:11:21 AM

Now
you are talking my language, Naseer Ahmed Saheb. As an American I do not put up
with “Intellectual
Dishonesty.” Enough is enough.

Sultan
Shahin Saheb will have to figure out what to do? You and I cannot do anything. Long
back when I first started to post, I forewarned Sultan Saheb that it will get
worse. It sure did, Naseer Saheb.

Sadly,
I will also gradually withdraw. I will make comments every now and then. This “New Age Islam”
forum has been dominated by “The Gang Of Four” for far too long now. No one
will learn anything from all such debates where the other side are nothing but
downright bigots.

By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/19/2014 12:55:28 AM

It
is truly amazing that Rational, a product of the Madrasa, and Suhail a
self-proclaimed Arabic scholar who studied every important work of Islamic
literature for 8 years in Arabic should both resort to the most rabid
anti-Islamic sources to malign Islam. This is proof, that their study of
original Islamic literature does not provide them with the necessary ammunition
to malign Islam.

I
have already established that these sites distort the meanings of even verses
from the Quran, by changing words and stripping them of their context to spread
misinformation about Islam. What they can do with secondary literature is
anybody's guess, since this is not easily verifiable as the works are not as
widely disseminated nor do people possess copies of these works from which they
can verify the authenticity of what is quoted.

Suhail
and Rational stand totally discredited as deliberate users of falsehood on a
regular basis to malign Islam. What they write carries no credibility and must
be ignored. Let us not waste further time on them.

By Observer - 2/19/2014 12:45:39 AM

Pseudo Rational,

You
wrote as follows:

why should you wonder Jamat e Islami have highly
educated people as their warriors.

May I ask, “Who was your Mullah at the Tablighi Jamaat?” He sure got you brainwashed pretty bad, or should I say, beyond
repair.

Pseudo ever heard this song of late great Mohammed Rafi (May
Almighty Allah rest his soul in peace)?

Believe it or not, I am currently fighting with another nut case
who happens to be a businessman (33), and also, a long bearded “Namazee” in the country of Pakistan. Not sure if he joined “Tableegh,” movement while
he was young, but from the way he operates his business, one should count the
fingers before shaking the hands. The point I am making is that, those who at
one time or the other were under the spell of misguided Mullahs will likely to crack
up big time.

Hell, you did, and I know for sure the other clown sitting in
Pakistan will now have to answer a whole lot of questions about the false declaration
of funds from Dubai. All such immoral acts have nothing to do with Islam, but
upon one Muslim’s own choice to know how to differentiate between right and
wrong in their worldly affairs.

Simply look at you. You don’t give damn about anything. You
think that you are right all the time. What is more interesting is that, you
are admired by a few brilliant commentators who continually feel sorry for
you. Instead of advising you to move on and change the name of “Mohammed,”they remain busy to
exploit your mind so that you can continue to hate everything about Islam. Disgusting,
isn’t it?

Secular Logic asks “What
was the reason to make the comment to rational that I have copy pasted below?
What was the ocassion, the thread, the provocation? None”.

My response: Rational not
only said that the debate is not over but also mentioned what he would prove.
My response was simply that what he can prove is what is already admitted. What
was already admitted was detailed so that Rational would not go about trying to
prove what was admitted. Now he has done exactly that!

SL says: I have seen what rational said. He merely mentioned
that the Jizya debate was not over yet. He did not restart the debate.

My response: Yes it is you SL who tried to restart the debate
which you admit as quoted below:

SL says: I am not taking up cudgels on anybody's behalf. I am
presenting my own viewpoint.

Secular Logic contradicts himself: “Rest assured, I have no wish
to debate with you.

SL once again contradicts himself: “You declare the debate is over. I dont think
so”.

SL says: “You declared that it was over, you had won it, and
made the astonishing claim that Jizya was a benevolent levy on non-muslims”.

My response: The claim that Jiziya protected the minorities and
their faith was made in the debate and defended through an exchange of more
than 100 posts. What was SL doing then? Is he not trying to restart a debate
that has ended?

SL says: “I would have taken you up on it even if you were talking
to the air”.

My response: He didn’t take it up when I was debating with three
other people. Nothing new has now been said that wasn’t said earlier.

Can any one of you ask “Secular Logic” to
be please kind enough to let us know which Muslim laws based on our Holy Quran
benefited humanity?

“What these Quran based
Muslim laws did was nothing short of crimes against humanity.”

If the man and his chumps call
themselves brilliant, then let them speak out of sincerity and not hatred. Let’s
see how moral and pious they are? We shall soon find out what sort of
intelligence they possess? Then they might just be dumb enough to think that no
one is reading what Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia is writing as they have collectively decided
not to respond to my posts anyway. Not surprising, folks!

Very truly yours,

Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 11:32:58 PM

To: All Respected Readers on the “New Age Islam” forum.

How
many of you carefully read the content of Point No. 5 by Mr. S. Jeelani?

“5)
the next part (in red) you point out that earlier empires did the same. i
never denied that they did. every conquering army needs money and
the best way to get it is to tax the vanquished. there is nothing about this
knowledge which relates to my assertion that jizya is primarily to encourage
the reluctant to convert, especially since "humiliation" is a very
strong negative incentive. psychologists have opined that learning is faster
and more persistent when acquired through "negative" reinforcement
(electric shock versus food pellets, in cases of mice learning to negotiate mazes).
the next part about sections of the vanquished populations exempted from jizya
do not add to the debate, because this was never in contest. if women and
children were exempt from jiya, i can easily argue that it made sense as the
woman generally follows her man, traditionally as well as doctrinally. all
taxes have some exemptions. even zakat (i think).

so does this part of your response answer my question? no, as this does not relate to my questions
at all.”

Why does these handful of geniuses do some
comparison between the Roman tax system versus the Islamic tax system? The only
way to squash their hatred for Islam and Quranic verses will be to compare the
two systems of taxes. Trust me, they will never be satisfied with any answers
given by Muhammad Yunus Saheb or Naseer Ahmed Saheb. They will mock and force
all of us to bow down to their argument. Mind you that they do raise good
points, but it all gets washed out with hatred of Islam.

Let’s face it, if God governs in the
affairs of men,
then according to Muslims there has to be some wisdom in what was revealed
about “Jizya”in our Holy Quran. Why do we have to go in
circles to satisfy the ego of “The Gang Of Four”who will have nothing to say at the end, but “No, as this does not
relate to my questions at all.” What a sheer waste of our valuable time?

Finally, there is more to life than to
continue to read the “Copy & Paste”artists who are hell-bent in smearing everything about Islam.

Very respectfully yours,

Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia

By Mohammed Rafiq Lodhia - 2/18/2014 11:16:31 PM

I Am American

Quote Of Benjamin Franklin That God
Governs The Affairs Of Men

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the
longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- thatGod governs in the
affairs of men.
And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable
that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the
sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build
it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring
aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of
Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects
will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word
down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate
instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to
chance, war, and conquest.